If Hitler had acquired the Bomb - and because of his use of V2 bombs on London, it was clear he would shortly be sending them with a nuke on top - would you have used it first against wherever that Bomb-factory was sited?
Ken Livingstone would know more.
Arf. Although I think his interest in matters Nazi ends once Hitler stopped supporting Zionism.
Perhaps somebody could ask him on his next TV appearence?
What happens when Theresa May brings a deal back from Brussels and the Commons rejects it? My guess is nothing at all.
Will there be a new Prime Minister? My guess is that Theresa May will say that the Commons has decided that no deal is better than the deal she negotiated, no better deal is on offer from the EU, she has always said that no deal is better than a bad deal and she regrets that Brussels was not willing to negotiate in good faith for a better deal. She will not resign. I think a majority of Conservative MPs will decide that it is the right time to rally around their PM.
Will there be a general election? Although the ERG and probably the DUP will have voted against the deal, I would expect both to support May in a Confidence vote. May certainly will not want an election. There will not be an election.
Will there be a referendum? The most plausible scenario would see May push for a deal/no-deal referendum in the hope that the public would follow her and overrule opposition from the ERG. There are several problems with this scenario, not the least of which being that it would be to split asunder the Conservative Party, something May has done everything to avoid. My guess is that May would rather preserve Party unity than to cause irreparable harm for a referendum she might well lose anyway (always assuming she could make such a referendum happen). There will not be a referendum. Probably.
So my guess is that Theresa May will walk us off the cliff without a deal. When we aren't gnawing on each other's bones by Easter many people will wonder what the fuss was about, while jobs are lost and irreparable harm is done to other people.
The risk of a second referendum on they type of Brexit is that once it gets to Parliament it will almost certainly be amended to include the option of no brexit.
Indeed. None of those clamouring for a Peoples Vote are looking for a deal or no deal vote. If that did come to pass, I'm not sure what would happen - either a mass boycott or mass write-in campaign? Either way, hard to see such a vote settling much at all, and taking a huge risk with our future given how seriously at least some are taking the no-deal scenario.
Following yesterdays UK voter concerns our cousins in Germany have just publised their list of what worries germans most atm
Trump makes the world a dangerous place - 69% Immigation overwhelming authorities - 63% Tensions resulting from immigration - 63% Politicians not up to job - 61% Terrorism - 59% Cost to german taxpayers of EU debt crisis - 58% Political extemism - 57% Natural disasters - 56% Impurities in food - 55%
Interestingly no mention of energy security, which should be just behind immigration concerns for most of Europe right now. Unless they don’t care that they rely very heavily on Russia to keep their houses heated and factories going in the winter.
Don't forget that Europe (including Germany) is busy building LNG import terminals right now. That will fundamentally change energy security in the region.
Yes - Europe will have to rely on Trump's USA to supply the LNG.
The LNG market is going to become a lot more like the oil market (I should do a video on it...), with long term contracts replaced by spot. Why? Because there's a lot of spot LNG coming on stream and buyers are going to get increasingly comfortable thinking they can use it to get the gas they want (and at a discount too).
Some of the new LNG projects - like Mozambique/Tanzania - are absolutely massive. Indeed, Australia and Mozambique/Tanzania alone could be bigger than the entire LNG market in 2010.
Did that take two years of the government's energies and 6,400 civil servants?
No idea, gays have as much right to be henpecked as the rest of us.
There are advantages to a relationship with two men. We had our anniversary a couple of weeks back and neither of us remembered until late in the afternoon.
I some times think you gay guys have it right. Managing the whims of a woman is a full time job, somehow by a process of osmosis you are meant to be able to read her mind.
Me: what do you want for tea ? Her: oh anything I dont really care later Her again : why did you cook lamb ? I wanted fish
It would be easier to live with the panel of professional masterchef sometimes
I think Alastair’s comment made every heterosexual married man here laugh out loud!
I bet gay men don’t constantly remind each other of that time they got blind drunk five years ago either.
That's another losing bet. I'm up to 20 years and counting since a vase broke which I'm blamed for. I wasn't even in the room at the time it happened.
BTW Alastair, and Ii hope you don't mind me bringing this up, but I hope your partner's recovery has continued and that he's fit, well and enjoying life.
He has, amazingly, made a full recovery. It took the best part of two years for it to be complete, but he got there. In the process I learned a lot of medical stuff that I had no idea about previously and some new words, including herniation and perseveration. We now consciously don't talk about it much - the aim is to look forward, not back.
We have been very lucky. Few recover from injuries such as he had to the extent that he has.
We may have our differences, but I'm really delighted for you both. Excellent news, in a world short of it....
The good news is, that Northern Ireland's MLA's are getting a pay cut. The bad news is, they'll still get £35,000 a year.
thats about £35k too much
Indeed if they're not doing their jobs they shouldn't get a penny. Striking workers don't get paid why should they?
There are two arguments I can think of. One, there is still constituency casework to deal with. Two, negotiating the terms of a new executive is part of their job, so they are representing their constituents by standing up for their constituents interests in those negotiations. Even if that means not coming to an agreement.
How are they doing casework if the Assembly isn't sitting?
What happens when Theresa May brings a deal back from Brussels and the Commons rejects it? My guess is nothing at all.
Will there be a new Prime Minister? My guess is that Theresa May will say that the Commons has decided that no deal is better than the deal she negotiated, no better deal is on offer from the EU, she has always said that no deal is better than a bad deal and she regrets that Brussels was not willing to negotiate in good faith for a better deal. She will not resign. I think a majority of Conservative MPs will decide that it is the right time to rally around their PM.
Will there be a general election? Although the ERG and probably the DUP will have voted against the deal, I would expect both to support May in a Confidence vote. May certainly will not want an election. There will not be an election.
Will there be a referendum? The most plausible scenario would see May push for a deal/no-deal referendum in the hope that the public would follow her and overrule opposition from the ERG. There are several problems with this scenario, not the least of which being that it would be to split asunder the Conservative Party, something May has done everything to avoid. My guess is that May would rather preserve Party unity than to cause irreparable harm for a referendum she might well lose anyway (always assuming she could make such a referendum happen). There will not be a referendum. Probably.
So my guess is that Theresa May will walk us off the cliff without a deal. When we aren't gnawing on each other's bones by Easter many people will wonder what the fuss was about, while jobs are lost and irreparable harm is done to other people.
The risk of a second referendum on they type of Brexit is that once it gets to Parliament it will almost certainly be amended to include the option of no brexit.
And rightly so. If none of the Brexit options are suitable then we shouldn't leave.
For those looking to take fantasy revenge on the pesky { Remainers | Brexiteers } while learning more about nuclear weapons through history, may I recommend:
Are you indulging in Backus-Naur formats? Context-free grammars should be perfect for PB / Brexit
When I was programming in ALGOL in the 1960s I never knew I was using Backus-Naur formats.
Having checked with Wikipedia I still haven't a clue what Backus-Naur formats are.
Did that take two years of the government's energies and 6,400 civil servants?
No idea, gays have as much right to be henpecked as the rest of us.
There are advantages to a relationship with two men. We had our anniversary a couple of weeks back and neither of us remembered until late in the afternoon.
I some times think you gay guys have it right. Managing the whims of a woman is a full time job, somehow by a process of osmosis you are meant to be able to read her mind.
Me: what do you want for tea ? Her: oh anything I dont really care later Her again : why did you cook lamb ? I wanted fish
It would be easier to live with the panel of professional masterchef sometimes
I think Alastair’s comment made every heterosexual married man here laugh out loud!
I bet gay men don’t constantly remind each other of that time they got blind drunk five years ago either.
That's another losing bet. I'm up to 20 years and counting since a vase broke which I'm blamed for. I wasn't even in the room at the time it happened.
BTW Alastair, and Ii hope you don't mind me bringing this up, but I hope your partner's recovery has continued and that he's fit, well and enjoying life.
He has, amazingly, made a full recovery. It took the best part of two years for it to be complete, but he got there. In the process I learned a lot of medical stuff that I had no idea about previously and some new words, including herniation and perseveration. We now consciously don't talk about it much - the aim is to look forward, not back.
We have been very lucky. Few recover from injuries such as he had to the extent that he has.
If the bets had lost would they have voided her stake ?
Speaking as a non-lawyer, the legal points seem to be: 1) are punters (and customers generally) bound by T&Cs designed to be clicked through rather than read, and certainly not understood? 2) are the terms themselves reasonable? 3) can the bookie wait to see whether the bets win or lose before cancelling them?
What happens when Theresa May brings a deal back from Brussels and the Commons rejects it? My guess is nothing at all.
Will there be a new Prime Minister? My guess is that Theresa May will say that the Commons has decided that no deal is better than the deal she negotiated, no better deal is on offer from the EU, she has always said that no deal is better than a bad deal and she regrets that Brussels was not willing to negotiate in good faith for a better deal. She will not resign. I think a majority of Conservative MPs will decide that it is the right time to rally around their PM.
Will there be a general election? Although the ERG and probably the DUP will have voted against the deal, I would expect both to support May in a Confidence vote. May certainly will not want an election. There will not be an election.
Will there be a referendum? The most plausible scenario would see May push for a deal/no-deal referendum in the hope that the public would follow her and overrule opposition from the ERG. There are several problems with this scenario, not the least of which being that it would be to split asunder the Conservative Party, something May has done everything to avoid. My guess is that May would rather preserve Party unity than to cause irreparable harm for a referendum she might well lose anyway (always assuming she could make such a referendum happen). There will not be a referendum. Probably.
So my guess is that Theresa May will walk us off the cliff without a deal. When we aren't gnawing on each other's bones by Easter many people will wonder what the fuss was about, while jobs are lost and irreparable harm is done to other people.
The risk of a second referendum on they type of Brexit is that once it gets to Parliament it will almost certainly be amended to include the option of no brexit.
And rightly so. If none of the Brexit options are suitable then we shouldn't leave.
No. The decision to leave has been made. At some future time we might decide to rejoin, and that's fair enough.
If those people who wanted to remain had put all their efforts to getting a EFTA agreement which for pretty much all circumstances would have zero economic impact on the movement of trade, instead of trying to undo the result we might have had something that was more like what they want.
Somehow, I don't think that Tony Blair has the best interests of Theresa May's party at heart.
Any second referendum would be to decide which form of leave to adopt eg Deal or no deal, but not with an option to remian - that we should leave was already decide at the first referendum..
That will boost Leave / no second vote by a few percent.
If only he had a vote on the EU Constitution which he promised.... I dont think people wanted to leave the EU as it was, but what it had become.
I really don't see any substantive logic to that. The EU before the Lisbon Treaty had already expanded which is the change that made the biggest difference to how people saw it.
In any case, this episode is quite likely to end up with people endorsing what the EU is now in a referendum.
That will boost Leave / no second vote by a few percent.
If only he had a vote on the EU Constitution which he promised.... I dont think people wanted to leave the EU as it was, but what it had become.
I really don't see any substantive logic to that. The EU before the Lisbon Treaty had already expanded which is the change that made the biggest difference to how people saw it.
In any case, this episode is quite likely to end up with people endorsing what the EU is now in a referendum.
It was Lisbon that removed the British veto from whole swathes of areas providing QMV instead to make the EU "workable". Except that QMV gives a majority to the Eurozone nations alone to gang up on non-Eurozone nations.
Following yesterdays UK voter concerns our cousins in Germany have just publised their list of what worries germans most atm
Trump makes the world a dangerous place - 69% Immigation overwhelming authorities - 63% Tensions resulting from immigration - 63% Politicians not up to job - 61% Terrorism - 59% Cost to german taxpayers of EU debt crisis - 58% Political extemism - 57% Natural disasters - 56% Impurities in food - 55%
Interestingly no mention of energy security, which should be just behind immigration concerns for most of Europe right now. Unless they don’t care that they rely very heavily on Russia to keep their houses heated and factories going in the winter.
Don't forget that Europe (including Germany) is busy building LNG import terminals right now. That will fundamentally change energy security in the region.
Yes - Europe will have to rely on Trump's USA to supply the LNG.
The LNG market is going to become a lot more like the oil market (I should do a video on it...), with long term contracts replaced by spot. Why? Because there's a lot of spot LNG coming on stream and buyers are going to get increasingly comfortable thinking they can use it to get the gas they want (and at a discount too).
Some of the new LNG projects - like Mozambique/Tanzania - are absolutely massive. Indeed, Australia and Mozambique/Tanzania alone could be bigger than the entire LNG market in 2010.
I was involved in discovering a lot of that Tanzanian gas (and subsequent development work).
One little titbit that might amuse. We were drilling in very deep water. Part of our Environmental Impact Assessment required making provision for Coelocanth spawning grounds. Which is a bit difficult as nobody has a clue where they are, having only found a handful in the past century - after a gap of 66 million years...
We did send a sub down to look for them. Sadly, no joy.
Kerguelen is fairly empty if the French will let it go.... Even Corbyn could not object to a nation state in Kerguelen. Of course, it is a bit chilly......
You do realise that relocating Jews to the Indian Ocean area was a thought process for some?
For those looking to take fantasy revenge on the pesky { Remainers | Brexiteers } while learning more about nuclear weapons through history, may I recommend:
Are you indulging in Backus-Naur formats? Context-free grammars should be perfect for PB / Brexit
When I was programming in ALGOL in the 1960s I never knew I was using Backus-Naur formats.
Having checked with Wikipedia I still haven't a clue what Backus-Naur formats are.
John_M's post was a bit reminiscent of EBNF (Extended BNF) so
{ Remainers | Brexit }
Would be a repitition descriptor with an alternator so that "Remainers" or "Brexit" could be applied
The nice thing about EBNF is that it can be described using EBNF
What happens when Theresa May brings a deal back from Brussels and the Commons rejects it? My guess is nothing at all.
Will there be a new Prime Minister? My guess is that Theresa May will say that the Commons has decided that no deal is better than the deal she negotiated, no better deal is on offer from the EU, she has always said that no deal is better than a bad deal and she regrets that Brussels was not willing to negotiate in good faith for a better deal. She will not resign. I think a majority of Conservative MPs will decide that it is the right time to rally around their PM.
Will there be a general election? Although the ERG and probably the DUP will have voted against the deal, I would expect both to support May in a Confidence vote. May certainly will not want an election. There will not be an election.
Will there be a referendum? The most plausible scenario would see May push for a deal/no-deal referendum in the hope that the public would follow her and overrule opposition from the ERG. There are several problems with this scenario, not the least of which being that it would be to split asunder the Conservative Party, something May has done everything to avoid. My guess is that May would rather preserve Party unity than to cause irreparable harm for a referendum she might well lose anyway (always assuming she could make such a referendum happen). There will not be a referendum. Probably.
So my guess is that Theresa May will walk us off the cliff without a deal. When we aren't gnawing on each other's bones by Easter many people will wonder what the fuss was about, while jobs are lost and irreparable harm is done to other people.
No. The decision to leave has been made. At some future time we might decide to rejoin, and that's fair enough.
If those people who wanted to remain had put all their efforts to getting a EFTA agreement which for pretty much all circumstances would have zero economic impact on the movement of trade, instead of trying to undo the result we might have had something that was more like what they want.
We will not have a second referendum on leaving.
A factor that needs to be considered in the question of whether the Commons will reject it is that the best way to comprehend Labour policy is to see it through the perspective of them wanting to make sure that the Conservatives and not Labour take responsibility for any bad outcomes. It is quite possible that they will find themselves in the situation where the best way to avoid being responsible is to abstain, since voting with the government makes them part of the outcome, and voting against may make them responsible for a no deal outcome.
Somehow, I don't think that Tony Blair has the best interests of Theresa May's party at heart.
Any second referendum would be to decide which form of leave to adopt eg Deal or no deal, but not with an option to remian - that we should leave was already decide at the first referendum..
If sufficient people have changed their mind on the principle once the deal has been reached, why should they be constrained from expressing that view? indeed why would you want to force through a deal which would not command majority support?
"Mr Davis, who resigned over Theresa May's Chequers agreement in July, will speak at a rally in Bolton on Sept 22 alongside Mr Farage, the former Ukip leader, and Labour MP Kate Hoey.
He said: "The Government's Chequers proposal doesn't meet the requirements of the referendum. We may be out of Europe but still run by Europe. We must pursue a Canada-style deal which the EU has already made clear they are agreeable to. If this is not possible, Britain can still thrive under a World Trade Deal under WTO rules."
"Mr Davis, who resigned over Theresa May's Chequers agreement in July, will speak at a rally in Bolton on Sept 22 alongside Mr Farage, the former Ukip leader, and Labour MP Kate Hoey.
He said: "The Government's Chequers proposal doesn't meet the requirements of the referendum. We may be out of Europe but still run by Europe. We must pursue a Canada-style deal which the EU has already made clear they are agreeable to. If this is not possible, Britain can still thrive under a World Trade Deal under WTO rules."
anything yet on the vicar of Bath ? Theyre off to court today
Somehow, I don't think that Tony Blair has the best interests of Theresa May's party at heart.
Any second referendum would be to decide which form of leave to adopt eg Deal or no deal, but not with an option to remian - that we should leave was already decide at the first referendum..
If sufficient people have changed their mind on the principle once the deal has been reached, why should they be constrained from expressing that view? indeed why would you want to force through a deal which would not command majority support?
Survation had it Leave 50% Remain 50% with Leave fractionally ahead with likely voters, no guarantee Leave would not win a second time too.
However given we likely enter a BINO transition deal anyway next March for years a referendum is largely pointless as a deal will be yet to be determined
"Mr Davis, who resigned over Theresa May's Chequers agreement in July, will speak at a rally in Bolton on Sept 22 alongside Mr Farage, the former Ukip leader, and Labour MP Kate Hoey.
He said: "The Government's Chequers proposal doesn't meet the requirements of the referendum. We may be out of Europe but still run by Europe. We must pursue a Canada-style deal which the EU has already made clear they are agreeable to. If this is not possible, Britain can still thrive under a World Trade Deal under WTO rules."
You've got to give it to May, her Chequers plan has really united almost everyone, from all parts of the left/right and leave/remain spectra
There’s still no chance that the MPs will vote for Boris though, but it’s fair to say that his name (and that of JRM, who definitely won’t run) in the survey is a good proxy that the members are unhappy with the direction taken by the government on Brexit.
I’m still laying Boris and JRM, backing Javid and Hunt, and neutral on Gove.
Hunt has no chance whatsoever. Javid only if he resigns over Chequers before Boris kicks May out. This poll is simply screaming that the Tory members won't elect a Remainer (or Gove who has sold out). And if Boris does not stand or pulls out, JRM is the most likely winner. Leaver Tory MPs will back whichever Leaver is left standing.
Jeremy Hunt ought to be favourite imo, or joint favourite with Javid. What Hunt should do is sharpen up his image as he can look a bit shabby on television, and the long air flights as Foreign Secretary will not help. He must follow Jeremy Corbyn's lead and have a word with David Cameron's mum to get the name of a decent tailor and shirtmaker.
Hunt was beaten by Boris, Javid, Gove and Mogg head to head with members with Yougov so no way he is favourite or anywhere near
If the bets had lost would they have voided her stake ?
Speaking as a non-lawyer, the legal points seem to be: 1) are punters (and customers generally) bound by T&Cs designed to be clicked through rather than read, and certainly not understood? 2) are the terms themselves reasonable? 3) can the bookie wait to see whether the bets win or lose before cancelling them?
Surely 365 are going to do absolutely everything in their power to avoid a court case that could set a precedent about Ts&Cs, limiting stakes or the arbitrary cancellation of bets post-event?
You've got to give it to May, her Chequers plan has really united almost everyone, from all parts of the left/right and leave/remain spectra
Chequers was crafted with singular and all consuming objective of sustaining May's suzerainty and nothing else. It's not surprising that everyone fucking despises it.
What is interesting at the moment is that the Remainers seem all at sea. For a year and a half they preached soft Brexit, going on about pragmatism and compromise, finally falling at May's feet in adoration when she sold out on all her red lines and proposed what they wanted. And what happened - the EU completely rejected their idea.
Real Brexiteers have been saying all along there was no such thing as Soft Brexit - it was just an attempt by the losing side to make their defeat more palatable. Now Brexit is exposed as we said all along - a binary decision, fully in or fully out, which we all knew and why we ended up having to have a referendum.
Remainers have mocked Leavers for 'not having a plan'. But there is a plan - CETA, which is being detailed apparently in a large dossier shortly and was worked out in detail at DexEU.
It is the Remainers who don't have a plan. Other than having another referendum of course. No wonder all they want to talk about now is Labour and Corbyn.
I am off to see Nigel Farage tonight in Sydney. Hoping to persuade him to emigrate and set up a party here. If he called it the Beer Drinkers Piss-up Party he would probably win an overall majority.
If the bets had lost would they have voided her stake ?
Speaking as a non-lawyer, the legal points seem to be: 1) are punters (and customers generally) bound by T&Cs designed to be clicked through rather than read, and certainly not understood? 2) are the terms themselves reasonable? 3) can the bookie wait to see whether the bets win or lose before cancelling them?
Surely 365 are going to do absolutely everything in their power to avoid a court case that could set a precedent about Ts&Cs, limiting stakes or the arbitrary cancellation of bets post-event?
If that's what they wanted, they could have just paid out
The Russians spent a fortune on the tiny James Bond-inspired perfume bottle used to carry novichok including developing new technology to ensure it wasn't a suicide mission for their agents, experts revealed today.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, one of Britain's top chemical weapons experts, says the fake sample vial of Nina Ricci Premier Jour could only have been produced by Putin's top scientists in their most sophisticated and top secret lab.
Somehow, I don't think that Tony Blair has the best interests of Theresa May's party at heart.
Any second referendum would be to decide which form of leave to adopt eg Deal or no deal, but not with an option to remian - that we should leave was already decide at the first referendum..
If sufficient people have changed their mind on the principle once the deal has been reached, why should they be constrained from expressing that view? indeed why would you want to force through a deal which would not command majority support?
Which is why referendums without consequences being clear are absurd. Unless it is absolutely and unambiguously clear what the consequences of a "remain option" are then it's as simplistic and open to gaming as the in/out (but what does that mean) debacle.
We pay MPs to take these decisions, consider and understand the trade-off and consequences and not run away from them. Instead of legislating properly they run away and pretend that they're social workers with the pathetic excuse that is "constituency work". Emoting and gaming bureaucracy seems all that they're good for.
For those looking to take fantasy revenge on the pesky { Remainers | Brexiteers } while learning more about nuclear weapons through history, may I recommend:
Are you indulging in Backus-Naur formats? Context-free grammars should be perfect for PB / Brexit
I cannot tell a lie. I still have Jeffrey Fiedl's 'Mastering Regular Expressions' in my bookshelf (required reading for anyone who wishes to properly torture one's posterity when writing Perl ).
If the bets had lost would they have voided her stake ?
Speaking as a non-lawyer, the legal points seem to be: 1) are punters (and customers generally) bound by T&Cs designed to be clicked through rather than read, and certainly not understood? 2) are the terms themselves reasonable? 3) can the bookie wait to see whether the bets win or lose before cancelling them?
Surely 365 are going to do absolutely everything in their power to avoid a court case that could set a precedent about Ts&Cs, limiting stakes or the arbitrary cancellation of bets post-event?
If that's what they wanted, they could have just paid out
It’s a weird one, isn’t it? Like a lot of these things there’s likely a key detail or two missing from what’s been reported so far. 365 clearly think they’re dealing with a professional syndicate, but they are the respondent to the legal action so it’s probably past the stage at which simply paying out will get the suit dropped.
Will be very interesting to follow this one, I’m not sure the average punter in the street understands how different online bookmaking is from high street or on-course bookmaking.
Kerguelen is fairly empty if the French will let it go.... Even Corbyn could not object to a nation state in Kerguelen. Of course, it is a bit chilly......
You do realise that relocating Jews to the Indian Ocean area was a thought process for some?
No I did not realise that.
I was just trying to imagine somewhere that even Corbyn could not object to.
The Russians spent a fortune on the tiny James Bond-inspired perfume bottle used to carry novichok including developing new technology to ensure it wasn't a suicide mission for their agents, experts revealed today.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, one of Britain's top chemical weapons experts, says the fake sample vial of Nina Ricci Premier Jour could only have been produced by Putin's top scientists in their most sophisticated and top secret lab.
That will boost Leave / no second vote by a few percent.
If only he had a vote on the EU Constitution which he promised.... I dont think people wanted to leave the EU as it was, but what it had become.
I really don't see any substantive logic to that. The EU before the Lisbon Treaty had already expanded which is the change that made the biggest difference to how people saw it.
In any case, this episode is quite likely to end up with people endorsing what the EU is now in a referendum.
There cant possibly be another referendum without a General Election being won by a party promising one. If there were, the Leave 16 campaign would be proven to be more prescient than Jesus when he told Peter he would betray him three times before the rooster crowed.
Whatever happens with Brexit, aviation is going to require co-operation among many parties to avoid severe disruption. I’ve a half-written header for submission on the subject that I shall endeavour to finish this weekend.
Kerguelen is fairly empty if the French will let it go.... Even Corbyn could not object to a nation state in Kerguelen. Of course, it is a bit chilly......
You do realise that relocating Jews to the Indian Ocean area was a thought process for some?
No I did not realise that.
I was just trying to imagine somewhere that even Corbyn could not object to.
The Russians spent a fortune on the tiny James Bond-inspired perfume bottle used to carry novichok including developing new technology to ensure it wasn't a suicide mission for their agents, experts revealed today.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, one of Britain's top chemical weapons experts, says the fake sample vial of Nina Ricci Premier Jour could only have been produced by Putin's top scientists in their most sophisticated and top secret lab.
Kerguelen is fairly empty if the French will let it go.... Even Corbyn could not object to a nation state in Kerguelen. Of course, it is a bit chilly......
You do realise that relocating Jews to the Indian Ocean area was a thought process for some?
No I did not realise that.
I was just trying to imagine somewhere that even Corbyn could not object to.
South Sandwich Islands (unless they are a subset of the Malvinas) Florida Keys (they can afford flood defences) Isle of Wight (to be renamed and coastal forts reactivated)
They are going to change it aren't when the Maomentumers take their seats at the NEC.
It certainly looks like a plan is in place to extend this sorry saga by revisiting it post-conference.
Yep, as the most significant Parliamentary and legislative session in decades moves to a critical point, Her Majesty’s Opposition are going to be arguing loudly among themselves over the right to be racist. With their leadship being those in favour of the racism.
"Mr Davis, who resigned over Theresa May's Chequers agreement in July, will speak at a rally in Bolton on Sept 22 alongside Mr Farage, the former Ukip leader, and Labour MP Kate Hoey.
He said: "The Government's Chequers proposal doesn't meet the requirements of the referendum. We may be out of Europe but still run by Europe. We must pursue a Canada-style deal which the EU has already made clear they are agreeable to. If this is not possible, Britain can still thrive under a World Trade Deal under WTO rules."
anything yet on the vicar of Bath ? Theyre off to court today
What happens when Theresa May brings a deal back from Brussels and the Commons rejects it? My guess is nothing at all.
Will there be a new Prime Minister? My guess is that Theresa May will say that the Commons has decided that no deal is better than the deal she negotiated, no better deal is on offer from the EU, she has always said that no deal is better than a bad deal and she regrets that Brussels was not willing to negotiate in good faith for a better deal. She will not resign. I think a majority of Conservative MPs will decide that it is the right time to rally around their PM.
Will there be a general election? Although the ERG and probably the DUP will have voted against the deal, I would expect both to support May in a Confidence vote. May certainly will not want an election. There will not be an election.
Will there be a referendum? The most plausible scenario would see May push for a deal/no-deal referendum in the hope that the public would follow her and overrule opposition from the ERG. There are several problems with this scenario, not the least of which being that it would be to split asunder the Conservative Party, something May has done everything to avoid. My guess is that May would rather preserve Party unity than to cause irreparable harm for a referendum she might well lose anyway (always assuming she could make such a referendum happen). There will not be a referendum. Probably.
So my guess is that Theresa May will walk us off the cliff without a deal. When we aren't gnawing on each other's bones by Easter many people will wonder what the fuss was about, while jobs are lost and irreparable harm is done to other people.
The risk of a second referendum on they type of Brexit is that once it gets to Parliament it will almost certainly be amended to include the option of no brexit.
Personally I would rather we didn't leave, but I don't think such an amendment would pass. I'm fairly certain Corbyn would be opposed, which would kill it, but if he weren't then the track record in the Commons is that there are enough Labour Leave rebels to compensate for the Conservative Remain rebels.
That said, even the risk of it would be another reason for May to keep well clear of the idea. So nothing much happens except that we leave without a deal.
EU to move ahead with cultural quotas for streaming services
The proposals will require that streaming services give over at least 30% of their on-demand catalogues to original productions made in each EU country where a service is provided (individual EU Member States could choose to set the content bar even higher, at 40%).
Streaming services will also have to ensure visibility and prominence for local content — so no burying the ‘European third’ in a dingy corner of the site where no one will find it, let alone stream it.
The Russians spent a fortune on the tiny James Bond-inspired perfume bottle used to carry novichok including developing new technology to ensure it wasn't a suicide mission for their agents, experts revealed today.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, one of Britain's top chemical weapons experts, says the fake sample vial of Nina Ricci Premier Jour could only have been produced by Putin's top scientists in their most sophisticated and top secret lab.
Mr. Eagles, it's a credible possibility. I'd back him but, as with the blues, I've put enough into those markets already and just want to see how they progress.
Presumably photo taken in Downing St? How many people have been in trouble for this now, and what else do they think a photographer with a 600mm lens is looking at - the birds?
Presumably photo taken in Downing St? How many people have been in trouble for this now, and what else do they think a photographer with a 600mm lens is looking at - the birds?
It isn't an accident now...it just isn't...when the solution is simply to have the paperwork in a folder.
god give me strength. i thought it couldnt get worse.
For the effectiveness of this strategy, you should watch season 7, episode 11 of 'The Good Wife' when Peter Florrick does the 'Full Grassley' to visit every single county in Iowa for the caucus vote.
god give me strength. i thought it couldnt get worse.
For the effectiveness of this strategy, you should watch season 7, episode 11 of 'The Good Wife' when Peter Florrick does the 'Full Grassley' to visit every single county in Iowa for the caucus vote.
Mark Zuckerberg was repeating that strategy, but I think we can safely say his POTUS bid is now off the table.
A factor that needs to be considered in the question of whether the Commons will reject it is that the best way to comprehend Labour policy is to see it through the perspective of them wanting to make sure that the Conservatives and not Labour take responsibility for any bad outcomes. It is quite possible that they will find themselves in the situation where the best way to avoid being responsible is to abstain, since voting with the government makes them part of the outcome, and voting against may make them responsible for a no deal outcome.
That's almost a convincing argument, but I think Corbyn will justify a vote against with the following (faulty) chain of logic.
A defeat for May will lead to a general election. A general election will lead to a Labour government. A Labour government will negotiate a better deal.
So they will argue that they do not have responsibility because there should be a general election so that they can take over the negotiations (and then be responsible).
I don't think there's any chance of there being a general election, so the logic is a bit faulty, but the argument works to an extent because if May tries to lay responsibility on Labour they can easily respond with, "call a general election and we will see if the British people want Labour to be responsible for the negotiations."
Of course it would work better if Labour had stopped behaving irresponsibly over anti-semitism by that point, but they seem to be in a death spiral on that.
Currywurst is something of a comfort food - very popular and mainstream. Really is a thing.
Yep, sampled one in Cologne when I was there in June. Superb even on a hot day - really spicy fruity curry sauce and perfect with chips.
When I was younger and travelled round Europe on Inter Rail I used to frequent the station kiosks at Danish railway stations (known as polsevogn) to sample the Danish versions with mustard.
One Christmas I travelled on a train from Aarhus to Cologne (12 hours) in sub-zero temperatures and survived on curry bockwurst which they used to bring round on the trolley - you could pay in marks, francs (French or Belgian), kroner (Danish or Norwegian), lire or guilders.
Presumably photo taken in Downing St? How many people have been in trouble for this now, and what else do they think a photographer with a 600mm lens is looking at - the birds?
It isn't an accident now...it just isn't...when the solution is simply to have the paperwork in a folder.
I can’t believe that :
1. It’s not part of the briefing for anyone invited to a meeting at No.10, and part of the standard security briefing for those walking Downing St. regularly.
2. The policemen at the gate on Whitehall and inside 10DS aren’t briefed to look for open files carried on people entering and leaving.
3. Files describing government contingency planning are not labelled as restricted or secret (which would make possession of a copy or photograph of them illegal).
So, either the whole thing is a set up to get the media talking about contingency planning, or there’s a serious problem with data security at the top of government. Hopefully it’s the former.
EU to move ahead with cultural quotas for streaming services
The proposals will require that streaming services give over at least 30% of their on-demand catalogues to original productions made in each EU country where a service is provided (individual EU Member States could choose to set the content bar even higher, at 40%).
Streaming services will also have to ensure visibility and prominence for local content — so no burying the ‘European third’ in a dingy corner of the site where no one will find it, let alone stream it.
People will watch what they want to watch....this will just piss people off as they have to dig past all stuff they have never shown any interest in.
Still bonkers, but this (old) Guardian report says 30% EU content, not 30% each individual country as they say in techcrunch. It would be weird for the EU to effectively ban offering the same content in multiple EU states.
god give me strength. i thought it couldnt get worse.
For the effectiveness of this strategy, you should watch season 7, episode 11 of 'The Good Wife' when Peter Florrick does the 'Full Grassley' to visit every single county in Iowa for the caucus vote.
Mark Zuckerberg was repeating that strategy, but I think we can safely say his POTUS bid is now off the table.
It helps if they don't hate you when they meet you personally
If Hitler had acquired the Bomb - and because of his use of V2 bombs on London, it was clear he would shortly be sending them with a nuke on top - would you have used it first against wherever that Bomb-factory was sited?
Okay, wading through the confusing and barely coherent language, let's see if I understand the counterfactual and break it down a little:
Scenario A: The Nazis have the Bomb and we don't - the Germans successfully test a low-yield nuclear device in Poland in late 1942 or early 1943. We know of the destructive power via SOE and other channels. There is panic in allied circles but the Nazis still need a delivery mechanism to reach Washington but the first target is Moscow which is incinerated and the USSR capitulates.
Scenario B: We have the Bomb and the Nazis don't - late 1943, the Trinity exercise takes place at Los Alamos and is a success. The atomic device is shipped to Europe avoiding U-Boats and in February 1944, a modified Lancaster bomber drops the nuclear device on Nuremburg incinerating the city after which the allies call on Hitler to surrender. He refuses. Two weeks later a second bomb obliterates Dresden. The Wehrmacht revolt, Hitler is killed and Germany surrenders.
Scenario C: We both have the Bomb - as per Scenario B but in January 1944 the Nazis test a device over Poland and announce they also have a nuclear device. The allies destroy the A-Bomb installations in southern Germany and Norway but the Nazi A-Bomb obliterates London. Unfortunately for Hitler, he has to start again but the allies don't and three months later Berlin and Munich are destroyed.
I believe that in 1945, no one was aware of the radiation atomic devices would produce. They were just seen as big bombs - the after effects of cancers and other radiation-induced sickness weren't known until Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened.
In response to your question, knowing what was known in 1945, most leaders would have had few qualms about using the bomb on an enemy with no equivalent means of response.
Against another nuclear-armed state with more weapons and knowing the long-term biological and psychological devastation an exchange would occur with perhaps 200 megatons falling on the UK, perhaps there'd be more thought involved.
If Hitler had acquired the Bomb - and because of his use of V2 bombs on London, it was clear he would shortly be sending them with a nuke on top - would you have used it first against wherever that Bomb-factory was sited?
Okay, wading through the confusing and barely coherent language, let's see if I understand the counterfactual and break it down a little:
Scenario A: The Nazis have the Bomb and we don't - the Germans successfully test a low-yield nuclear device in Poland in late 1942 or early 1943. We know of the destructive power via SOE and other channels. There is panic in allied circles but the Nazis still need a delivery mechanism to reach Washington but the first target is Moscow which is incinerated and the USSR capitulates.
Scenario B: We have the Bomb and the Nazis don't - late 1943, the Trinity exercise takes place at Los Alamos and is a success. The atomic device is shipped to Europe avoiding U-Boats and in February 1944, a modified Lancaster bomber drops the nuclear device on Nuremburg incinerating the city after which the allies call on Hitler to surrender. He refuses. Two weeks later a second bomb obliterates Dresden. The Wehrmacht revolt, Hitler is killed and Germany surrenders.
Scenario C: We both have the Bomb - as per Scenario B but in January 1944 the Nazis test a device over Poland and announce they also have a nuclear device. The allies destroy the A-Bomb installations in southern Germany and Norway but the Nazi A-Bomb obliterates London. Unfortunately for Hitler, he has to start again but the allies don't and three months later Berlin and Munich are destroyed.
I believe that in 1945, no one was aware of the radiation atomic devices would produce. They were just seen as big bombs - the after effects of cancers and other radiation-induced sickness weren't known until Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened.
In response to your question, knowing what was known in 1945, most leaders would have had few qualms about using the bomb on an enemy with no equivalent means of response.
Against another nuclear-armed state with more weapons and knowing the long-term biological and psychological devastation an exchange would occur with perhaps 200 megatons falling on the UK, perhaps there'd be more thought involved.
Comments
Perhaps somebody could ask him on his next TV appearence?
Down there with pineapple pizza, IMO.
Some of the new LNG projects - like Mozambique/Tanzania - are absolutely massive. Indeed, Australia and Mozambique/Tanzania alone could be bigger than the entire LNG market in 2010.
apparently it has been Germany's top food for 26 years in a row, if only we had pateneted the recipe !
https://www.dw.com/en/currywurst-sausage-defends-title-as-germans-favorite-cafeteria-lunch-for-26th-year-in-a-row/a-43801274
Now if we'd trademarked it...
Having checked with Wikipedia I still haven't a clue what Backus-Naur formats are.
1) are punters (and customers generally) bound by T&Cs designed to be clicked through rather than read, and certainly not understood?
2) are the terms themselves reasonable?
3) can the bookie wait to see whether the bets win or lose before cancelling them?
If those people who wanted to remain had put all their efforts to getting a EFTA agreement which for pretty much all circumstances would have zero economic impact on the movement of trade, instead of trying to undo the result we might have had something that was more like what they want.
We will not have a second referendum on leaving.
In any case, this episode is quite likely to end up with people endorsing what the EU is now in a referendum.
One little titbit that might amuse. We were drilling in very deep water. Part of our Environmental Impact Assessment required making provision for Coelocanth spawning grounds. Which is a bit difficult as nobody has a clue where they are, having only found a handful in the past century - after a gap of 66 million years...
We did send a sub down to look for them. Sadly, no joy.
{ Remainers | Brexit }
Would be a repitition descriptor with an alternator so that "Remainers" or "Brexit" could be applied
The nice thing about EBNF is that it can be described using EBNF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Backus–Naur_form
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/06/michel-barnier-says-chequers-deadas-david-davis-join-forces/
"Mr Davis, who resigned over Theresa May's Chequers agreement in July, will speak at a rally in Bolton on Sept 22 alongside Mr Farage, the former Ukip leader, and Labour MP Kate Hoey.
He said: "The Government's Chequers proposal doesn't meet the requirements of the referendum. We may be out of Europe but still run by Europe. We must pursue a Canada-style deal which the EU has already made clear they are agreeable to. If this is not possible, Britain can still thrive under a World Trade Deal under WTO rules."
However given we likely enter a BINO transition deal anyway next March for years a referendum is largely pointless as a deal will be yet to be determined
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, one of Britain's top chemical weapons experts, says the fake sample vial of Nina Ricci Premier Jour could only have been produced by Putin's top scientists in their most sophisticated and top secret lab.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6138471/Novichok-James-Bond-style-Perfume-bottle-used-Salisbury-assassins-scientists.html
We pay MPs to take these decisions, consider and understand the trade-off and consequences and not run away from them. Instead of legislating properly they run away and pretend that they're social workers with the pathetic excuse that is "constituency work". Emoting and gaming bureaucracy seems all that they're good for.
Will be very interesting to follow this one, I’m not sure the average punter in the street understands how different online bookmaking is from high street or on-course bookmaking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45407674
I was just trying to imagine somewhere that even Corbyn could not object to.
Nina Ricci should sue.
https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1037661314481565699
https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1037661514507927552
So the two are now joined in endorsing racism
South Sandwich Islands (unless they are a subset of the Malvinas)
Florida Keys (they can afford flood defences)
Isle of Wight (to be renamed and coastal forts reactivated)
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2018scedin49.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Scots law also recognised that those in the public eye need to have broad shoulders and a thick skin.
That said, even the risk of it would be another reason for May to keep well clear of the idea. So nothing much happens except that we leave without a deal.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1037661665142206465
EU to move ahead with cultural quotas for streaming services
The proposals will require that streaming services give over at least 30% of their on-demand catalogues to original productions made in each EU country where a service is provided (individual EU Member States could choose to set the content bar even higher, at 40%).
Streaming services will also have to ensure visibility and prominence for local content — so no burying the ‘European third’ in a dingy corner of the site where no one will find it, let alone stream it.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/05/eu-to-move-ahead-with-cultural-quotas-for-streaming-services/?guccounter=1
People will watch what they want to watch....this will just piss people off as they have to dig past all stuff they have never shown any interest in.
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1037679249740783616?s=21
Yellow-Hammer Time!
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1037680430470840320?s=21
A defeat for May will lead to a general election. A general election will lead to a Labour government. A Labour government will negotiate a better deal.
So they will argue that they do not have responsibility because there should be a general election so that they can take over the negotiations (and then be responsible).
I don't think there's any chance of there being a general election, so the logic is a bit faulty, but the argument works to an extent because if May tries to lay responsibility on Labour they can easily respond with, "call a general election and we will see if the British people want Labour to be responsible for the negotiations."
Of course it would work better if Labour had stopped behaving irresponsibly over anti-semitism by that point, but they seem to be in a death spiral on that.
When I was younger and travelled round Europe on Inter Rail I used to frequent the station kiosks at Danish railway stations (known as polsevogn) to sample the Danish versions with mustard.
One Christmas I travelled on a train from Aarhus to Cologne (12 hours) in sub-zero temperatures and survived on curry bockwurst which they used to bring round on the trolley - you could pay in marks, francs (French or Belgian), kroner (Danish or Norwegian), lire or guilders.
Happy days.
1. It’s not part of the briefing for anyone invited to a meeting at No.10, and part of the standard security briefing for those walking Downing St. regularly.
2. The policemen at the gate on Whitehall and inside 10DS aren’t briefed to look for open files carried on people entering and leaving.
3. Files describing government contingency planning are not labelled as restricted or secret (which would make possession of a copy or photograph of them illegal).
So, either the whole thing is a set up to get the media talking about contingency planning, or there’s a serious problem with data security at the top of government. Hopefully it’s the former.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/26/eu-third-party-trader-amazon-google-ebay
The England cricket team owe me a huge debt.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1037642543582912513
I now have no idea why the UN has failed to be able to sort this simple problem out.
NEW THREAD
Stringer is a bit more lefty than the other two, and has been pretty neutral about Corbyn's leadership (publicly at least).
Scenario A: The Nazis have the Bomb and we don't - the Germans successfully test a low-yield nuclear device in Poland in late 1942 or early 1943. We know of the destructive power via SOE and other channels. There is panic in allied circles but the Nazis still need a delivery mechanism to reach Washington but the first target is Moscow which is incinerated and the USSR capitulates.
Scenario B: We have the Bomb and the Nazis don't - late 1943, the Trinity exercise takes place at Los Alamos and is a success. The atomic device is shipped to Europe avoiding U-Boats and in February 1944, a modified Lancaster bomber drops the nuclear device on Nuremburg incinerating the city after which the allies call on Hitler to surrender. He refuses. Two weeks later a second bomb obliterates Dresden. The Wehrmacht revolt, Hitler is killed and Germany surrenders.
Scenario C: We both have the Bomb - as per Scenario B but in January 1944 the Nazis test a device over Poland and announce they also have a nuclear device. The allies destroy the A-Bomb installations in southern Germany and Norway but the Nazi A-Bomb obliterates London. Unfortunately for Hitler, he has to start again but the allies don't and three months later Berlin and Munich are destroyed.
I believe that in 1945, no one was aware of the radiation atomic devices would produce. They were just seen as big bombs - the after effects of cancers and other radiation-induced sickness weren't known until Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened.
In response to your question, knowing what was known in 1945, most leaders would have had few qualms about using the bomb on an enemy with no equivalent means of response.
Against another nuclear-armed state with more weapons and knowing the long-term biological and psychological devastation an exchange would occur with perhaps 200 megatons falling on the UK, perhaps there'd be more thought involved.